Why are so many women ok with males taking their spaces?

So even if a particular woman doesn't give a shit about women in prisons, what bemuses me is why she's okay with some bloke pissing all over what it means to be a woman, telling her what a woman is and isn't. Why aren't women up in arms over this alone?

I don't know.
Ask my mother.

Ask my mother why she sells my reality out.

@RedToothBrush
Agree with everything you say but I do want to stress that there is an inherent misogyny in believing you could ever be a woman. That women are defined by you, and are nothing more than a feeling in your head. It stems from the very real male phenomenon of not understanding that women exist in their own right. Other feminists have written at length about it and picked it all apart.
So even if a particular woman doesn't give a shit about women in prisons, what bemuses me is why she's okay with some bloke pissing all over what it means to be a woman, telling her what a woman is and isn't. Why aren't women up in arms over this alone?

I have not read the whole thread BUT I was at a social event at the weekend and the majority of women there have no idea what is happening with the ' loss of women only spaces'. I can't remember all the terminology ..I am old .
I mean they are not aware that self ID women will be allowed in places like women's prisons , refuges , toilets , changing rooms .

but it doesn't change the fact that there are very few trans people out there speaking relatively.

That doesn't really help anyone who is directly affected, because they are say 'related' does it now?

Or the effect on women in places such as prisons? Or refugees?

Where the effect of just a tiny number can have a massive effect to the entire lives of other people.

Its ok, because it doesn't affect you because you are priviledged and therefore more sheltered from the risk of what it does go horribly wrong, cos no one gave a fuck about those less priviledged women and though about how shitting all over those women's rights was deemed fine?

Let me stress this; a lot of the time its not about YOUR rights on this subject. Its the rights of other women, that woke woman are happy to give up. You know the really vulnerable women or the women in situations they can not escape. And the kids who can't consent to all the shit which is supposedly for their benefit which is highly questionable.

It does not matter how many trans people there are out there. What matters is the vulnerability of those trans people and the conflict of interest there is with other very vulnerable people who do come into contact with them.

Its too easy to be woke and have no understanding what so ever as to what you are agreeing to on behalf of other people, who often don't have a political voice.

This inability to acknowledge abused women and kids and their needs and why this might class with trans rights is one I find particularly disturbing. Their invisibility speaks to me more than the triumph of progressive politics in 'winning' rights for trans people.

'Winning'? 'Winning' at whose expense? Its not a win, if there is harm done to vulnerable groups in the name of progressiveness.

@IndistinctRadioChatter
The problem we have is the following. Radical feminist theory posits that trans ideology is inherently misogynistic. There is plenty of feminist literature out there on the subject. Yes the very notion of concept that a man can be a woman is rooted in the worst vile misogyny when you begin to pick it apart: so the pain and so on of the trans person , while being very real to them, is still antithetical to women's rights because trans rights and women's rights cannot live side by side.
When a movement is rooted in misogyny, like transactivism is, feminists have to pick a side.
Men need to sort out their own shit and really not expect sympathy and spaces from the very people they despise and believe themselves to be superior to

Literally nowhere on the internet does anyone talk about toilets as much as on MN.

I think BjornAgain81 is right, not that these issues aren't important (which may not be what she is saying?) but about people not perceiving it as a big issue in their lives.

I think this is often true with people responding to legislative changes. Quite a few of these have happened procedurally in our government over the last number of years, but it is very difficult to interest people in them though they can have very significant consequences.

@Lamaha — Are you actually suggesting that being trans is some sort of fun hobby for poorly traveled people whose privilege insulates them from serious adversity? I don’t think you’re being intentionally ironic but this makes no sense. Of course people of relative privilege in western society have more freedom to be openly trans than those living with poverty and fear. Substitute the word “gay” for “trans” and it remains true. But it doesn’t logically follow that being trans, or gay, is just a trendy experiment.

It you’ve ever take a basic psychology course you are no doubt familiar Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which points out that a person’s basic bodily requirements (food, warmth, sleep) must be met before the person can focus on anything else. After that, safety becomes paramount. Only when the person is warm and safe and fed can they attend to their other needs: love and belonging, personal esteem, and finally self-fulfillment. So yes obviously if you’re starving and facing mortal danger you can’t focus on your gender identity, especially in places where being trans will get you ostracized or worse. But that doesn’t mean what you think it means.

You’ve certainly accomplished a lot in your life. I don’t see the relevance of your life story but it’s always interesting to learn about other people. I too have a background you would consider “interesting,” and if I’ve learned one thing it’s that I am no more intelligent or thoughtful or able to “see facts” than anyone else. No amount of education or life experience entitles you to know the minds and bodies of strangers. This is why I fight against the encroachment of abortion rights and this is why I use whatever pronoun a person requests. Your sniffy attitude toward those you deem to be insufficiently worldly or heaven forbid enjoy Magaluf! is ignorant and bigoted. If your goal is to help uninformed people understand the “facts,” you’re not helping your cause by jumping to groundless conclusions supported only by sweeping generalizations and your own life experience.

Apologies if this post is disjointed, I’m rushing! I’ve already spent way too much time on it and this has reminded me why I don’t regularly engage on this topic. It’s not like I’m going to convince anyone to see my viewpoint anyway.

Toilets are only the tip of iceberg though. I have concerns about making them de-facto mixed sex and creating a culture where nobody can challenge any man in there for fear of committing a 'hate crime'. This is particularly pertinent as we are seeing globally a huge uptick in hidden cameras in female spaces. There's no question that we are reducing safeguarding and offering up women as girls as collateral damage.

Beyond that though there are things that concern me even more such as prisons, sports, accurate data collection and so forth. Not to mention the complete loss of women being able to accurately describe themselves and their experiences without cries of whataboutism.

That's the problem, though. It's all social media based. There's actually no law currently stopping men from entering the ladies toilet so I think the whole thing is a storm in a teacup.

What is a trans person though if it's something anyone can identify as based on nothing more than saying it's so? What is stopping violent men getting in on the act? Going by social media behaviour there are a lot of violent sounding men who insist on she/her pronouns to describe themselves.

This is the issue.

I also take issue with the idea that I am threatened by trans people as a group. I specifically think that the gender ideology that currently underpins trans activism is a threat.

My life is better than my mother's and my grandmother's because of specific legislation that recognises the rights that women need to participate fully in society - laws that made it illegal to sack women on marriage or restrict contraception to married women were introduced in my lifetime. MPs still don't have many maternity rights. That doesn't just impact on MPs who are currently pregnant, but any woman who is seeking selection.

Gender ideologists seek to reduce recognition of the impact of sex while forcing us all into gender boxes.

but it doesn't change the fact that there are very few trans people out there speaking relatively.

Using Stonewall definitions I can't think of anyone I know who isn't trans - and Stonewall are the people influencing policy and practice.

but it doesn't change the fact that there are very few trans people out there speaking relatively.

What is a trans person though if it's something anyone can identify as based on nothing more than saying it's so? What is stopping violent men getting in on the act? Going by social media behaviour there are a lot of violent sounding men who insist on she/her pronouns to describe themselves.

I appreciate that big orgs are making policies (in order to appear 'progressive') but it doesn't change the fact that there are very few trans people out there speaking relatively. Violent men are still a much bigger threat to the average women.

When the government make a pronouncement that the starting point for all debate about things geographical is that the earth IS flat and all opposition to this is bigotry I think most people will be rightly horrified.

Exactly

In reality, very few people pay any regard to TRA lunacy aside from on here.

Apart from:

• the NSPCC - advise that girls and boys should have separate bedrooms after 10, but refuse to explain how this policy interacts with their policy on self ID - here I'm particularly concerned about their unwillingness to talk about a safeguarding policy for fear of causing offence.

• local councils who use 'Allsorts' literature that teaches schools that a girl asserting her right to single sex facilities per legislation needs to be educated about her transphobia.

-the Police who receive training telling them that being female has something to do with Barbie and who don't seem to be able to distinguish between discussion of belief and hate speech.

-Twitter who ban women for talking about biology while ignoring violent threats to women.

-the City of London Corporation - carried out a consultation on single sex facilities but binned the responses they didn't like. Result - no more single sex facilities in City of London. Person responsible for consultation still mysteriously happy to enjoy all the benefits of freemasonry.

• any MP who won't discuss this subject because actually talking about female biology is too controversial.

Yes very few people pay any attention to this issue, but that doesn't mean it isn't having an impact on public policy.

I get this argument in principle, but it's a bit like asking how we can discuss geography with people promoting the idea that the earth is flat. In reality, very few people pay any regard to TRA lunacy aside from on here.

That's not true though. Governments, orgs, companies have all bought into the idea you can change sex because you say so. Laws are being changed because of it.

When the government make a pronouncement that the starting point for all debate about things geographical is that the earth IS flat and all opposition to this is bigotry I think most people will be rightly horrified.

That is what is currently happening here. It's not a few fringe activists it's complete institutional and regulatory capture.

Lamaha, of course the trans-allies can be patronising too. It's not a race to the bottom.

I reject your too. I described the phenomenon of waking up to the facts from a religion. This is how it happens.
I wasn't speaking to transpeople or their allies, but to GCs who will recognise that moment. I was sharing the experience, which many who come from the left as I do will recognise.

I think there are many reasons why some women don't see men taking women's spaces as an issue.
Female socialisation and the desire to be nice is quite a large part of it. I also think that many, many people have not yet grasped that the only thing bigger than the trans umbrella is the ozone layer. The current GRA has worked fairly well for 15 years but now we are told that a diagnosis of GD to qualify for a GRC is an unreasonable level of gatekeeping.

There is almost certainly a lack of critical thinking. In many areas of life we forgo the presumption of innocence because we think the scrutiny we are subjected to is a worthwhile sacrifice for safety and safe guarding reasons. I'm thinking of things such as DBS checks, airport security, money laundering laws etc and yet when it comes to self ID we think that an individual's reporting of feelings is sufficient to disregard the reasons that women's spaces exist.

The discussion is certainly worth having but I wonder how people think we can make good law if we base our decisions on something as individual and unverifiable as feelings.

Lamaha, of course the trans-allies can be patronising too. It's not a race to the bottom.

I don't think telling people they are misguided or being gaslighted etc is helpful in any way. It is patronising.

And @indistinct, regarding that interesting word "patronising" which got your panties into a knot:

How is it not patronising when a 20-something-barely-out-of-uni-or-still-there woke trans-ally demands that I "educate myself" on trans issues?

A blue-haired trans-ally who possibly has never earned a living herself, never gestated or given birth to a child, never been anywhere except London or Brighton and a family holiday in Mallorca, or a hen party in Magaluf, among her own kind? TELLING me to accept her absolute faith that a woman can have a penis and that "gender" is more valid than biological reality?

I don't want to lay it on too think, but really. I'm a 68 year old black woman who was born and grew up in one of the poorest countries in the world, managed to get an education in spite of that, has lived (that is, more than six months, actually integrated in the society) in about five countries and cultures in four continents, speaks four languages, given birth to and raised two children to adulthood, worked for NGOs for the downtrodden on two continents, lived on the poverty line, raised herself up, listened to the laments of women who truly have problems beyond being "misgendered", and a lot more I won't speak of hear as I would then out myself. And I don't like to boast but you called for it.

How is it not patronising when, as has really happened, a trans-ally younger than my own children insists that SHE knows the truth and can teach me about oppression, and is on the right side of history and I am just a stupid old dinosaur who will become obsolete in the brave new gender-neutral world that is about to dawn, unless I accept without question her absolute faith that sex does not exist; that men can magically turn into women and vice versa; and that men who have turned into women know more about being a woman than I do?

I'm sorry but those of the trans-faith are far more patronising than anything I could ever say on this forum.

That is your faith. That is your religion. I do not accept it.

Ironically I think self ID undermines trans rights as much as women's rights. If 'trans woman' is a completely subjective concept that can't be defined all statistical studies that attempt to show that they are more at risk of murder/less likely to commit violent crime than men/benefit from NHS treatment are meaningless.

It's an ideology that is focused on affirmation at the expense of rights.

Difficult to address any of them if you can’t define ‘woman’, and academics are being attacked (literally) simply for trying to have a philosophical discussion about the meaning of words.

I get this argument in principle, but it's a bit like asking how we can discuss geography with people promoting the idea that the earth is flat. In reality, very few people pay any regard to TRA lunacy aside from on here.